The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited, trademarks limited, etc.
GFDL is free, because Invariant Sections are free if used in opinions (nobody want peoples modify their opinion in a text). The GFDL prohibit the use of Invariant Sections in technic texts. The only case where a software respects FSD but not DFSG is good. That can be a software which prohibit the use of proprietary software in aggregates. This is good, totally ethical, and I think a license should do that for protect uers from proprietary. The cases where a software respects DFSG but not respects FSD are bad. For example, a software which prohibit the distribution of modified versions respects DFSG if it authorize patch files. But it's unethical. In some years, the patch will maybe be incompatible with the new version. The Debian project authorize that (but encourage to do not do that, but that's not suffiscient). The Debian project authorize too certain licenses which is too vague for talk about free (the Artistic License 1.0, for example). The DFSG is really bad, too laxist and useless. Le 26/04/2014 22:13, Dimitri John Ledkov a écrit : > On 25 Apr 2014 15:15, "Solal" <solal.rast...@me.com> wrote: >> >> Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of >> time in specific guidelines. >> I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the >> FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the DFSG will : >> -Be more efficient instead of lose a lot of time in the DFSG. >> -Be sure to be in the 100% free GNU/Linux distros list of the FSF. >> > > One is not a superset of the other. The two documents are incompatible. As > one example each way - In debian, we consider GFDL license with invariant > texts to be non-free. Whilst FSDG, disqualifies providing compatible > archives of non-free software. > > How are you measuring efficiency / loosing time here? Given the non-trivial > cost of switch and more restrictive terms of FSDG would require more audit > and ongoing work. > > The FSF 100% free list is not a deal-breaker pretty much for everyone. > > What specific aspects of FSDG do you find to not be met by DFSG? > > I am not sure if DFSG predates FSDG or not, but DFSG was used as a basis > for free software definition as published by Opens Source Initiative (OSI) > thus many organisations, including the Linux Foundation, do recognise > Debian as a free operating system. > > To answer the topic of your email - yes by large DFSG has been extremely > useful (especially in the early days of pleora of self-written licenses) to > current times with established license terms and non-trivial > compatibilities between them. It is concise and easy to read and > understand. Widely accepted by everyone else. Switching to a different > metric will not magically resolved all licensin issues (patents, trademark > violations, copyright assignments etc.) nor make upstream tarballs to be > magically correct and acceptable. > > Regards, > > Dimitri. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/535cd661.9080...@me.com
